User Talk: Jako96

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = User talk:Jako96/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Archives
| index = none
}}

Classification of Corticata

Setting the parent of Corticata as "Life" is clearly wrong; members of Corticata are eukaryotes not a separate or sister group. The issue is whether it's acceptable to treat Eukaryota as a domain when treating Corticata as a superkingdom. I can't really see why not; "domain" is a rank above "kingdom"; adding "super" to "kingdom" doesn't raise the rank above domain, any more than it does to any other rank. Prefixes of this kind create a group of ranks above the principal rank below and below the principal rank above. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:The 2020 citation says that they accept the Prokaryota superkingdom, and I don't expect them to use one superkingdom + one domain contatining another superkingdom. In the past, the rank "superkingdom" was always used in place of domain, and it was never used with domains, therefore, I think using them both is WP:SYNTH ↗. Jako96 (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

::I agree that the sources for the (now obsolete) Corticata don't say that eukaryotes are a domain, but they do very clearly say that corticates are eukaryotes. So the parent of Corticata is clearly "eukaryotes". If it weren't, it wouldn't be right to use "color_as" for eukaryotes. So the taxobox should show the parent. An alternative to using domain Eukaryota is to use something like "informal group: eukaryotes". I'm not prepared to accept that the text can say, with sources, that Corticata is part of the eukaryotes, but the taxobox cannot show this. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:::There's a 2024 source here ↗ that treats Corticata as a subdomain within the domain Eukarya, which might be one solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I mean, there's also Metakaryota ↗ too, also, we should use the Cavalier-Smith system as there are Chromista ↗ and Hacrobia ↗. Jako96 (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::So as Cavalier-Smith uses "eukaryotes", how should this be displayed in the taxobox? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I think it shouldn't be displayed in the taxobox, as these are different systems. There is a reason why scientists don't follow Cavalier-Smith. It could be mentioned in text that he doesn't use domains though, in my opinion. Jako96 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Well, there are two options in my view:
::::::::#If Corticata is not recognized by others, so only has an article because of (recent) historical use, there should not be a taxobox; we don't have taxoboxes for obsolete/historical taxa.
::::::::#If there is to be a taxobox, then we should be clear that Cavalier-Smith does accept a grouping called "eukaryotes" even if he does not give them a rank, so the taxobox could show "Unranked: Eukaryotes".
::::::::I don't accept that it's right to leave the article as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I'd prefer the second option. Jako96 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I created an "Eukaryota/clade" template with clade rank and always display and assigned those superkingdoms to it. See Template:Taxonomy/Corticata ↗, Template:Taxonomy/Metakaryota ↗ and Template:Taxonomy/Eukaryota/clade ↗. Jako96 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::You're welcome! Jako96 (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Uncultured sequences' names

Beware of treating the names of uncultured sequences as taxonomic placements. While this is an understandable assumption, the names do not correspond to their taxonomic placement. Environmental DNA sequences are usually named only *vaguely* according to what other taxa they may be related to based on very preliminary DNA searches, and are frozen in time. Many "Allapsidae" sequences were likely discovered before Viridiraptoridae was a thing. There is no real reason to rename these sequences because their names act more like barcodes or IDs than actual taxonomic names. — '''''Snoteleks''''' (''talk'') 01:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)